Surrogacy

A subject I sometimes think about and which comes to mind again because it is in the headlines due to a recent decision to exempt returning couples and babies from quarantine.

I will not mention the specific couple as I do not want to focus on them personally. However I am surprised, again, at the casually favourable and empathetic context in which stories re surrogacy are often presented. Celebrities for example, gushing in lifestyle magazines. And being gushed over.

It seems to be such a widely accepted and even lauded transaction but to my mind surrogacy is fraught with grave difficulty and consequence. I think there is usually an uneven power balance between the parties, in an economic sense, and this can allow for exploitation. For example in the Ukraine the average monthly wage is 300 euros and acting as a surrogate can earn one 9000 euros, which is 2 and a half to 3 years wages. Tempting if one is stuck.

Bearing and birthing babies always carries risk. Especially where fertility or implanting drugs are used. The demands upon the body are profound. The effects are lasting, physical and emotional.

There are baby farming industries developing in places like India, Thailand, Nigeria etc. It is highly profitable for companies in the Ukraine who charge 30000 to 50000 for services less than one quarter of which goes to the person providing the most fundamental service and bearing all the risk.

I do not think surrogacy is a value neutral activity. It is open to serious abuse. I think even under the best conditions there is inherent risk and potential suffering for the birthing mother. I don't know why it is so widely accepted as it appears to be. The whole area causes me to feel very uneasy.

kaymin

1 in 10,000 pregnancies in the UK lead to death of the birth mother.

Yes surrogacy is open to abuse as is everything but have you anything to back up that there is abuse? It is tightly regulated in the Ukraine.

You should search testimonials from surrogate mothers to see how they really feel about it.

kaymin

kaymin wrote: »

1 in 10,000 pregnancies in the UK lead to death of the birth mother.

Yes surrogacy is open to abuse as is everything but have you anything to back up that there is abuse? It is tightly regulated in the Ukraine.

You should search testimonials from surrogate mothers to see how they really feel about it.

Death is far from the only consequence of pregnancy. Fortunately.

Gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, anaemia, post-partum depression, sepsis or infection post partum, post partum thyroiditis, traumatic delivery leading to PTSD which is estimated at about 4% of births, haemorrhage are risks.

And then the more ordinary effects on the body after bearing children such as potentially haemorrhoids, prolapsed organs, incontinence, muscle strains and skeletal issues, effects from epidural injection in spine, weak stomach muscles and weakened pelvic floor, obesity, loss of teeth, stretch marks, varicose veins, and so on. Pre eclampsia and gestational diabetes doubles the life term risk for cardio vascular conditions and also increase risk of metabolic diseases.

Surrogate pregnancies have been shown to have a higher emotional risk as the mother naturally bonds with the baby she has borne. Lupron used on surrogate mothers increases intercranial pressure. Multiple foetuses in surrogacy entail greater risk, whether carried to term or the extra foetus(es) are surgically removed during pregnancy. Surrogate pregnancies have been shown also to have higher levels of the complications I mentioned above that occur during pregnancy.

LeakyLime

kaymin wrote: »

1 in 10,000 pregnancies in the UK lead to death of the birth mother.

Yes surrogacy is open to abuse as is everything but have you anything to back up that there is abuse? It is tightly regulated in the Ukraine.

You should search testimonials from surrogate mothers to see how they really feel about it.

Why is commercial surrogacy illegal in the EU if it is unproblematic? Why is it countries like Russia, India, Ukraine allow it.

In a lot EU countries, all surrogacy is illegal even non-paid surrogacy eg France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal and
Bulgaria.

Rich Irish parents pay poor Ukriane women to carry their biologicial child - more conversations about potential abuse and conditions of the Ukranian women need to be had.

kaymin

LeakyLime wrote: »

Why is commercial surrogacy illegal in the EU if it is unproblematic? Why is it countries like Russia, India, Ukraine allow it.

In a lot EU countries, all surrogacy is illegal even non-paid surrogacy eg France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal and
Bulgaria.

Rich Irish parents pay poor Ukriane women to carry their biologicial child - more conversations about potential abuse and conditions of the Ukranian women need to be had.

What abuse are you talking about exactly?

kaymin

Deleted User wrote: »

Death is far from the only consequence of pregnancy. Fortunately.

Gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, anaemia, post-partum depression, sepsis or infection post partum, post partum thyroiditis, traumatic delivery leading to PTSD which is estimated at about 4% of births, haemorrhage are risks.

And then the more ordinary effects on the body after bearing children such as potentially haemorrhoids, prolapsed organs, incontinence, muscle strains and skeletal issues, effects from epidural injection in spine, weak stomach muscles and weakened pelvic floor, obesity, loss of teeth, stretch marks, varicose veins, and so on. Pre eclampsia and gestational diabetes doubles the life term risk for cardio vascular conditions and also increase risk of metabolic diseases.

Surrogate pregnancies have been shown to have a higher emotional risk as the mother naturally bonds with the baby she has borne. Lupron used on surrogate mothers increases intercranial pressure. Multiple foetuses in surrogacy entail greater risk, whether carried to term or the extra foetus(es) are surgically removed during pregnancy. Surrogate pregnancies have been shown also to have higher levels of the complications I mentioned above that occur during pregnancy.

Why would anyone want to become pregnant given all of that? As regards emotional risk and surrogate mothers bonding more with their babies (which they have no genetic link to) again what evidence do you have of this?

kaymin

LeakyLime wrote: »

Why is commercial surrogacy illegal in the EU if it is unproblematic? Why is it countries like Russia, India, Ukraine allow it.

In a lot EU countries, all surrogacy is illegal even non-paid surrogacy eg France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal and
Bulgaria.

Rich Irish parents pay poor Ukriane women to carry their biologicial child - more conversations about potential abuse and conditions of the Ukranian women need to be had.

Yet EU countries allow the unborn to be aborted. Since when is the EU the virtue of what is right and moral.

kaymin

kaymin wrote: »

What abuse are you talking about exactly?

https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-overlooked-risks-of-surrogacy-for-women

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/25/surrogacy-sweden-ban

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-47826356

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Children/Pages/SurrogacySummary.aspx

https://jpia.princeton.edu/news/lessons-ukraine-shifting-international-surrogacy-policy-protect-women-and-children

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/9/13/ukraines-baby-factories-the-human-cost-of-surrogacy

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/comment/surrogates-victims-of-abuse-exploitation-712289

kaymin

Deleted User wrote: »

https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-overlooked-risks-of-surrogacy-for-women

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/25/surrogacy-sweden-ban

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-47826356

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Children/Pages/SurrogacySummary.aspx

https://jpia.princeton.edu/news/lessons-ukraine-shifting-international-surrogacy-policy-protect-women-and-children

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/9/13/ukraines-baby-factories-the-human-cost-of-surrogacy

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/comment/surrogates-victims-of-abuse-exploitation-712289

I haven't read them all but this stuck out:
'However, there have been reports of poor treatment of surrogate mothers, with some agencies refusing to pay surrogates if they do not obey strict requirements or if they miscarry.'

Strict requirements such as not smoking or drinking. The arrangements in the event of miscarriage are agreed in advance. This is not abuse. It safeguards the welfare and health of the child. Maybe you should read past the headlines. I'm only familiar with Ukraine so can only comment on what happens there.

kaymin

kaymin wrote: »

I haven't read them all but this stuck out:
'However, there have been reports of poor treatment of surrogate mothers, with some agencies refusing to pay surrogates if they do not obey strict requirements or if they miscarry.'

Strict requirements such as not smoking or drinking. The arrangements in the event of miscarriage are agreed in advance. This is not abuse. It safeguards the welfare and health of the child. Maybe you should read past the headlines. I'm only familiar with Ukraine so can only comment on what happens there.

You should read them all. When you decide to take a position you should inform yourself somewhat at least.

By the way estimates are that at least 2 thirds of the Ukrainian surrogate industry is illegal and unregulated. Where there is such a lot of money to be made in a field with high demand there will be abuse. How much abuse is acceptable in your opinion? How much collateral damage?

I am somewhat discombobulated at your spinning of the story to supposedly positive or at least value neutral by implying surrogacy is somehow better for the well-being of a foetus because of strict supervision of the mother's habits. Maybe women should all be regulated by these safeguarding surrogacy agencies while pregnant?

First Up

kaymin wrote:

Strict requirements such as not smoking or drinking. The arrangements in the event of miscarriage are agreed in advance. This is not abuse. It safeguards the welfare and health of the child. Maybe you should read past the headlines. I'm only familiar with Ukraine so can only comment on what happens there.

I am familiar with one ongoing surrogacy attempt in Ukraine. The couple turned to that method after three miscarriages and a pessimistic evaluation of their chances. They are far from rich and are using all their savings as well as help from their parents.

They chose Ukraine after a lot of research and so far they are pleased with the process. It is highly organised and professional and the interests and care of all parties are very evident. The potential surrogate mothers are doing it for at least the second time.

The potential pitfalls are obvious but if done properly it is a win-win.

suicide_circus

People renting the wombs of poor women is an ancient practice.

Ckendrick

It’s hard to imagine anything more open to abuse then the concept of rich privileged people paying poor women to gestate their children.It’s just disgusting.

Ckendrick

suicide_circus wrote: »

People renting the wombs of poor women is an ancient practice.

Slavery is an ancient practice too, and woman beating.

mohawk

kaymin wrote: »

Why would anyone want to become pregnant given all of that? As regards emotional risk and surrogate mothers bonding more with their babies (which they have no genetic link to) again what evidence do you have of this?

It’s normal to bond with a baby growing inside you. Pregnancy is a time of sky high hormones and huge change in your body and also emotionally. Surrogate mothers can and do bond with the child inside them and they can struggle afterwards because they feel loss. Is there women so desperate out there for money that they will risk their physical and mental health to carry someone else’s child. Yes. Is it right to exploit their desperation and poverty. I think not.
No genetic link. However, even after giving birth their is traces of foetal DNA in a woman’s blood.

The sad reality is that where money is involved, there will be abuse.

Infertility, adoption and surrogacy are all very sensitive subjects for anyone wishing to share their lives with a child that they cannot have themselves.

First Up

Deleted User wrote:

The sad reality is that where money is involved, there will be abuse.

There can be. That doesn't mean there will be.

Montage of Feck

Given our own often quite dark recent history in this very area, I find it strange the practice isn't getting more scrutiny.

Montage of Feck

First Up wrote: »

There can be. That doesn't mean there will be.

If there can be, there will be.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The sad reality is that where money is involved, there will be abuse.

Infertility, adoption and surrogacy are all very sensitive subjects for anyone wishing to share their lives with a child that they cannot have themselves.

Infertility is tragic for people who want children.
That does not mean it is insensitive to examine the moral landscape of surrogacy. But somehow it has been framed with such implications.

First Up

Montage of Feck wrote:

If there can be, there will be.

But not always.

paw patrol

Deleted User wrote: »

The sad reality is that where money is involved, there will be abuse.

Infertility, adoption and surrogacy are all very sensitive subjects for anyone wishing to share their lives with a child that they cannot have themselves.

there is something that doesn't sit right with me the almost industrial level of richer people in western nation preying on poor women in the 3rd world to carry their kids.

There was a lot written about the number of Israelis doing this in Nepal after the earthquake in 2015.

Israel isn't the only one, saw documentary of Australians setting up brokerages to facilitate this in Thailand but that was years before.
It's seedy as ****

First Up

paw patrol wrote:

Israel isn't the only one, saw documentary of Australia's setting up brokerage to facilitate this in Thailand but that was years before. It's seedy as ****

What makes it seedy? It enables people desperate for a family to have their own child and its money for people who badly need it. I know it isn't cheap and some of the cost goes towards making sure the system is properly managed and regulated. Surely that's what we all should want.

People use surrogacy as a last resort and anyone who is that desperate for a child is a pretty safe bet to be a good parent.

If the surrogate mother is properly chosen and looked after, then what's the problem?

First Up

First Up wrote: »

What makes it seedy? It enables people desperate for a family to have their own child and its money for people who badly need it. I know it isn't cheap and some of the cost goes towards making sure the system is properly managed and regulated. Surely that's what we all should want.

People use surrogacy as a last resort and anyone who is that desperate for a child is a pretty safe bet to be a good parent.

If the surrogate mother is properly chosen and looked after, then what's the problem?

I think that it doesn’t sit well when celebrities, who have had children themselves, use surrogates. eg Kim Kardashan and Hilaria Baldwin.

paw patrol

First Up wrote: »

What makes it seedy? It enables people desperate for a family to have their own child and its money for people who badly need it. I know it isn't cheap and some of the cost goes towards making sure the system is properly managed and regulated. Surely that's what we all should want.

It's unfortunate if one can't have kids , but one doesn't have an absolute right to anything. Swanning in to pay an improvished young girl a few quid to bare your child commercialise the process and doesn't sit right with me.

In nepal , the process costs 12-30k USD - not earth shattering cash for an Isreali for such a major milestone event and the girl gets little of that.
Nepali Times have an article (2015) where the girl got 3000USD

Consider me uneasy at this exploitation

First Up wrote: »

People use surrogacy as a last resort and anyone who is that desperate for a child is a pretty safe bet to be a good parent.

This is just a wild notion , you've no idea their motivations.

While it's not surrogacy - we had an Irish couple get a foreign adoption and then abandon the child (Tristan Dowse) was a big story at the time and I know from people in my life foreign adoptions are plenty of effort

First Up wrote: »

If the surrogate mother is properly chosen and looked after, then what's the problem?

That isn't the case with many places like Nepal and India.

You think it's good then fine - I' not here to stop you.
I don't this its' fine.

jimmycrackcorm

I find it amusing that not long after voting to allow abortions that we're now arguing against allowing women to have surrogate babies.

What happened to "My body, My choice"?

First Up

paw patrol wrote:

It's unfortunate if one can't have kids , but one doesn't have an absolute right to anything. Swanning in to pay an improvished young girl a few quid to bare your child commercialise the process and doesn't sit right with me.

The case I am familiar with certainly couldn't be described as "swanning in". Preceded by the trauma of three miscarriages, follow up medical examinations, a lot of research, travel to Ukraine for further tests, egg retrieval and they are still less than half way there. I don't know how the money they are paying is divvied up but they are using all their savings for it. Nor do I know what the surrogate gets but it is entirely voluntary and the candidates have all done it before.

First Up

Deleted User wrote:

I think that it doesn’t sit well when celebrities, who have had children themselves, use surrogates. eg Kim Kardashan and Hilaria Baldwin.

A quick Google shows that both of those had medical reasons but if it was done properly, why should being a celebrity matter?

First Up

paw patrol wrote:

This is just a wild notion , you've no idea their motivations.

In the case I am familiar with, the motivations are as genuine as you could ask for.

It is claimed that it isn't unknown for people on social welfare to have babies to move up the housing list. I'd trust the motivations of someone spending many thousands of their own hard earned money more than that.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

A quick Google shows that both of those had medical reasons but if it was done properly, why should being a celebrity matter?

They both had children naturally before using a surrogate. As opposed to someone unable to conceive naturally or carry a baby to full term.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

In the case I am familiar with, the motivations are as genuine as you could ask for.

It is claimed that it isn't unknown for people on social welfare to have babies to move up the housing list. I'd trust the motivations of someone spending many thousands of their own hard earned money more than that.

It is not an issue with the peoples motivation. It is not an issue with how very much of their hard earned dosh they are willing to hand over. It is not about them.
It is about the women whose bodies are used to produce babies for a demand market.